[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 7, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57879-57883]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-25386]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-829]


Stainless Steel Wire Rod From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel 
wire rod (SSWR) from the Republic of Korea (Korea). The review covers 
two manufacturers/exporters of subject merchandise during the period of 
review (POR) September 1, 2001 through August 31, 2002. Based upon our 
analysis, the Department has preliminarily determined that dumping 
margins exist for both manufacturers/exporters. If these preliminary 
results are adopted in our final results of administrative review, we 
will instruct the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (BCBP) 
to assess antidumping duties as appropriate. Interested parties are 
invited to comment on these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE : October 7, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karine Gziryan, Jeff Pedersen, or 
Crystal Scherr Crittenden, AD/CVD Enforcement, Office IV, Group II, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, 
D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4081, (202) 482-2769 or (202) 482-
0989, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On September 15, 1998, the Department published in the Federal 
Register the antidumping duty order on SSWR from Korea. See Notice of 
Amendment of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Antidumping Duty Order: Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Korea, 63 FR 
49331 (September 15, 1998) (Amended Final Determination). On September 
3, 2002, the Department published a notice of ``Opportunity to Request 
an Administrative Review'' of the antidumping duty order on SSWR from 
Korea. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 
67 FR 56267 (September 3, 2002). On September 30, 2002, Changwon 
Specialty Steel Co., Ltd. (Changwon) and Dongbang Special Steel Co., 
Ltd. (Dongbang) (collectively, together with Pohang Iron and Steel Co., 
Ltd. (POSCO), respondent\1\ (see the ``Affiliation and Collapsing'' 
section of this notice)) requested an administrative review of the U.S. 
sales of Changwon and Dongbang that were subject to the antidumping 
order on SSWR from Korea. On October 24, 2002, the Department initiated 
an administrative review of Changwon and Dongbang. See Initiation of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 67 FR 65336 
(October 24, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Although we are treating POSCO, Changwon, and Dongbang, as a 
single entity, we may, in certain instances, refer to POSCO, 
Changwon, and Dongbang separately to distinguish the information 
separately reported by these companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 15, 2002, the Department issued an antidumping 
questionnaire to Changwon and Dongbang. The Department received 
Changwon's and Dongbang's responses in November and December 2002. The 
Department issued supplemental questionnaires to Changwon and Dongbang 
in December 2002 and, January, February, March and April 2003, and 
received responses from Changwon and Dongbang in January, February, 
March and April 2003.
    On May 16, 2003 the Department published in the Federal Register a 
notice extending the deadline for issuing the preliminary results in 
this case until no later than September 30, 2003. See Stainless Steel 
Wire Rod from South Korea: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 26571 (May 16, 
2003).

Scope of the Review

    For purposes of this review, SSWR comprises products that are hot-
rolled or hot-rolled annealed and/or pickled and/or descaled rounds, 
squares, octagons, hexagons or other shapes, in coils, that may also be 
coated with a lubricant containing copper, lime or oxalate. SSWR is 
made of alloy steels containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of 
carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other 
elements. These products are manufactured only by hot-rolling or hot-
rolling annealing, and/or pickling and/or descaling, are normally sold 
in coiled form, and are of solid cross-section. The majority of SSWR 
sold in the United States is round in cross-sectional shape, annealed 
and pickled, and later cold-finished into stainless steel wire or 
small-diameter bar. The most common size for such products is 5.5 
millimeters or 0.217 inches in diameter, which represents the smallest 
size that normally is produced on a rolling mill and is the size that 
most wire-drawing machines are set up to draw. The range of SSWR sizes 
normally sold in the United States is between 0.20 inches and 1.312 
inches in diameter.
    Two stainless steel grades are excluded from the scope of the 
review. SF20T and K-M35FL are excluded. The chemical makeup for the 
excluded grades is as follows:

                                                                          SF20T
Carbon........................................................                      0.05 max                      Chromium                   19.00/21.00
Manganese.....................................................                      2.00 max                    Molybdenum                     1.50/2.50
Phosphorous...................................................                      0.05 max                    Lead-added                   (0.10/0.30)
Sulfur........................................................                      0.15 max               Tellurium-added                    (0.03 min)
Silicon.......................................................                      1.00 max
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 57880]]


                                                                         K-M35FL
Carbon........................................................                     0.015 max                        Nickel                      0.30 max
Silicon.......................................................                     0.70/1.00                   12.50/14.00
Manganese.....................................................                      0.40 max                          Lead                     0.10/0.30
Phosphorous...................................................                       0.04max                      Aluminum                     0.20/0.35
Sulfur........................................................                      0.03 max
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The products subject to this review are currently classifiable 
under subheadings 7221.00.0005, 7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0030, 
7221.00.0045, and 7221.00.0075 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope 
of this review is dispositive.

Affiliation and Collapsing

A. Changwon, POSCO, and Dongbang
    During the less-than-fair value (LTFV) investigation, POSCO was the 
sole supplier to Dongbang of black coil (unfinished SSWR). See Notice 
of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Stainless 
Steel Wire Rod from Korea, 63 FR 40404, 40410 (July 29, 1998) (Final 
Determination). Based on this fact, and the fact that Dongbang was not 
able to obtain suitable black coil from alternative sources, the 
Department determined that POSCO and its wholly-owned subsidiary, 
Changwon, were affiliated with Dongbang through a close supplier 
relationship pursuant to section 771(33)(G) of the Act and section 
351.102(b) of the Department's regulations. See id. In the Final 
Determination, the Department also collapsed Changwon, POSCO, and 
Dongbang and treated them as a single entity for purposes of the 
dumping analysis in accordance with section 351.401(f) of the 
Department's regulations. See id.
    Neither POSCO, Changwon, nor Dongbang has provided any new evidence 
requiring the Department to revisit this finding. Therefore, we 
continue to find that POSCO and Changwon are affiliated with Dongbang 
through a close supplier relationship.\2\ Further, we have continued to 
treat POSCO, Changwon, and Dongbang as a single entity and to calculate 
a single margin for them. (See, e.g., Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice 
from Brazil; Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 29930, 29931 (June 4, 2001), citing 
Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand: Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 17998, 17999 
(April 13, 1999) (unchanged by the final results)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ During the POR, Changwon, and not POSCO, was Dongbang's sole 
supplier of black coil. However, since we continue to treat POSCO 
and Changwon as a single entity (as we did in the LTFV 
investigation), this does not change our determination that POSCO/
Changwon are affiliated with Dongbang through a close supplier 
relationship.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Affiliation Between Changwon, Dongbang and U.S. Trading Company 
Customers
    Dongbang reported U.S. sales to trading companies whom it 
classified as unaffiliated parties in its November 19, and December 12, 
2002 questionnaire responses. The petitioners (Carpenter Technoloy 
Corporation and Empire Specialty Steel) contend that Dongbang is 
affiliated with these trading company customers through a principal/
agent relationship.
    In the review of SSWR from Korea covering the period September 1, 
1999 through August 31, 2000, the petitioners also contended that 
Changwon and Dongbang were affiliated with certain U.S. trading company 
customers through a principal/agent relationship. However, the 
Department determined that no such relationship existed. See Stainless 
Steel Wire Rod From Korea; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 67 FR 6685 (February 13, 2002). See also 
Memorandum from Holly Kuga to Bernard Carreau on Whether Changwon and 
Dongbang are Affiliated With Certain U.S. Customers Under Section 
771(33) of the Act, dated October 1, 2001. Because the petitioners have 
not provided any new evidence indicating a change in the relationship 
between these companies, we continue to find that Dongbang is not 
affiliated with its U.S. trading company customers through a principal/
agent relationship.

Duty Absorption

    On November 5, 2002, the petitioners requested that the Department 
determine whether antidumping duties had been absorbed during the POR 
by the respondent. Section 751(a)(4) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), provides for the Department, if requested, to 
determine, during an administrative review initiated two or four years 
after the publication of the order, whether antidumping duties have 
been absorbed by a foreign producer or exporter, if the subject 
merchandise is sold in the United States through an affiliated 
importer. Because the collapsed entity POSCO/Changwon/Dongbang (see 
``Affiliation and Collapsing'' section of this notice) sold to 
unaffiliated customers in the United States through an importer that is 
affiliated, and because this review was initiated four years after the 
publication of the order, we will make a duty absorption determination 
in this segment of the proceeding within the meaning of section 
751(a)(4) of the Act.
    On February 21, 2003, the Department requested evidence from the 
respondent to demonstrate that the U.S. purchasers will pay any 
antidumping duties ultimately assessed on entries during the POR. In 
its response, submitted on February 28, 2003, Changwon, which is 
affiliated with the importer of the subject merchandise, stated that it 
negotiates a duty paid delivered price that includes the antidumping 
duties, and thus it sets prices so as to pass the cost of the 
antidumping duties to the customer. In determining whether the 
antidumping duties have been absorbed by the respondent during the POR 
we presume that the duties will be absorbed for those sales that have 
been made at less than normal value (NV). This presumption can be 
rebutted with evidence (e.g., an agreement between the affiliated 
importer and unaffiliated purchaser) that the unaffiliated purchaser 
will pay the full duty ultimately assessed on the subject merchandise.
    Although Changwon claims that the price charged to the unaffiliated 
U.S. customer includes duties paid, it provided no evidence that these 
duties include antidumping duties nor did it provide an agreement 
between the affiliated importer and the unaffiliated purchaser stating 
that the unaffiliated purchaser will pay the full duty ultimately 
assessed on the subject merchandise. Therefore, we preliminarily find 
that antidumping duties have been absorbed by POSCO/Changwon/Dongbang 
on all U.S. sales made through its affiliated importer.

[[Page 57881]]

Section 201 Duties

    The Department notes that merchandise subject to this review is 
subject to duties imposed under section 201 of the Act (section 201 
duties). Because the Department has not previously addressed the 
appropriateness of deducting section 201 duties from export price and 
constructed export price, on September 9, 2003 the Department published 
a request for public comments on this issue (68 FR 53104). All comments 
are due by October 9, 2003 and rebuttal comments are due October 24, 
2003. Since the Department has not made a determination on this issue 
at this time, for purposes of these preliminary results, no adjustment 
has been made.

Normal Value Comparisons

    To determine whether the respondent's sales of SSWR from Korea to 
the United States were made at less than NV, we compared the export 
price (EP) and constructed export price (CEP), as appropriate, to the 
NV, as described in the ``Export Price,'' ``Constructed Export Price'' 
and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice, below. We first attempted 
to compare contemporaneous U.S. and comparison-market sales of products 
that are identical with respect to the following characteristics: 
grade, diameter, further processing and coating. Where we were unable 
to compare sales of identical merchandise, we compared U.S. sales to 
comparison-market sales of the most similar merchandise based on the 
above characteristics, which are listed in order of importance for 
matching purposes.

Export Price

    For all reported U.S. sales, other than those made by the U.S. 
affiliate POSAM, in calculating U.S. price, the Department used EP, as 
defined in section 772(a) of the Act, because the merchandise was sold, 
prior to importation, to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States, 
or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States, 
and CEP methodology was not otherwise warranted based on the facts on 
the record. We calculated EP based on the packed, delivered prices 
charged to unaffiliated customers in the United States or to 
unaffiliated customers for exportation to the United States. In 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we made deductions 
from the starting price, where applicable, for foreign movement 
expenses (including brokerage and handling and inland freight), 
international freight, and marine insurance. We added duty drawback 
received on imported materials, pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the 
Act.

Constructed Export Price

    For all reported sales by the U.S. affiliate POSAM, in calculating 
U.S. price, the Department used CEP, as defined in section 772(b) of 
the Act, because the merchandise was sold, after importation, to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We calculated CEP based 
on delivered prices to unaffiliated customers in the United States. We 
made deductions from the starting price, where appropriate, for foreign 
and U.S. brokerage and handling, foreign and U.S. inland freight, 
international freight, marine insurance, U.S. duties, and direct and 
indirect selling expenses to the extent that they are associated with 
economic activity in the United States in accordance with section 
772(d)(1)(B) and (D) of the Act. These deductions included credit 
expenses. We added duty drawback received on imported materials 
pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act. Finally, in accordance 
with section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we made a deduction for CEP profit.
    For further details, see Calculation Memorandum dated September 30, 
2003, on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the Main 
Commerce Building (CRU).

Level of Trade (LOT)

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practical, we determined NV based on sales in the comparison market at 
the same LOT as the EP or CEP sales. The NV LOT is that of the 
starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when NV is based on 
CV, that of the sales from which we derive selling, general, and 
administrative (SG&A) expenses and profit. For EP sales, the U.S. LOT 
is also the level of the starting-price sale. For CEP sales, it is the 
level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer. The 
Department adjusts the CEP, pursuant to section 772(d), prior to 
performing the LOT analysis, as articulated by the Department's 
regulations at section 351.412. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United 
States, 243 F.3rd 1301, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than the EP or 
CEP sales, we examined stages in the marketing process and selling 
activities along the chain of distribution between the producer and the 
unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a 
different LOT, and the difference affects price comparability, as 
manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the 
sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of 
the export transaction, we make a LOT adjustment under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level is 
more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis 
for determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP 
affects price comparability, we adjust NV as provided under section 
773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset provision). See Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to Length 
Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).
    In determining whether separate LOTs exist, we obtained information 
from the collapsed entity POSCO/Changwon/Dongbang about the marketing 
stages for the reported U.S. and comparison-market sales, including a 
description of the selling activities performed by POSCO/Changwon/
Dongbang for each channel of distribution. In identifying LOTs for EP 
and comparison-market sales, we considered the selling functions 
reflected in the starting price before any adjustments. See 19 CFR 
351.412(c)(1)(i). In identifying LOTs for CEP sales, we considered the 
selling functions reflected in the starting price, as adjusted under 
section 772(d) of the Act. See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(ii). We expect that, 
if claimed LOTs are the same, the selling functions and activities of 
the seller at each level should be similar. Conversely, if a party 
claims that LOTs are different for different groups of sales, the 
selling functions and activities of the seller for each group should be 
dissimilar.
    In their questionnaire responses, Changwon and Dongbang reported 
that, during the POR, they sold the foreign like product in the home 
market through one channel of distribution and in the United States 
through one channel of distribution. We examined the selling functions 
for the collapsed entity POSCO/Changwon/Dongbang and found that the 
selling functions performed by Changwon and Dongbang in the home market 
are similar. Also, we found that the selling functions performed by 
Changwon and Dongbang with respect to the U.S. channels of distribution 
are similar. Based on the similarity of the selling functions, we have 
determined that the collapsed entity's sales of SSWR are made at one 
LOT in the home market and one LOT in the U.S. market. Moreover, we 
examined the selling functions for the collapsed entity POSCO/Changwon/

[[Page 57882]]

Dongbang, and found that the selling functions performed by the 
collapsed respondent are sufficiently similar in the home market and 
the United States to consider the LOTs in the two markets to be the 
same LOT. Therefore, we preliminarily find that there is one LOT in the 
U.S. and comparison-market, and thus, no LOT adjustment is required for 
comparison of U.S. sales to comparison-market sales. Moreover, because 
there is one LOT in the U.S. and comparison market, we have denied the 
respondent's request for a CEP offset. For further details, see 
Memorandum regarding Level of Trade Analysis dated September 30, 2003 
on file in the CRU.

Normal Value

    After testing home market viability, whether sales to affiliates 
were at arm's-length prices, and whether home market sales failed the 
cost test, we calculated NV as noted in subsection 4, ``Calculation of 
NV,'' below.

1. Home Market Viability

    In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales 
in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e., 
whether the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like 
product is equal to or greater than five percent of the aggregate 
volume of U.S. sales), we compared the respondents' volume of home 
market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of its U.S. 
sales of subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of 
the Act. Because the respondents' aggregate volume of home market sales 
of the foreign like product is greater than five percent of its 
aggregate volume of U.S. sales of subject merchandise, we determined 
that the home market is viable for the respondent.

2. Affiliated-Party Transactions and Arm's-Length Test

    Sales to affiliated customers in the home market not made at arm's 
length prices were excluded from our analysis because the Department 
considered them to be outside the ordinary course of trade. See 19 CFR 
351.102. To test whether these sales were made at arm's length prices, 
the Department compared, on a product-specific and quality-specific 
(i.e., prime and non-prime quality) basis, the prices of sales to 
affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all movement charges, 
direct selling expenses, and packing. Where, for the tested products, 
prices to the affiliated party were on average 99.5 percent or more of 
the price to unaffiliated parties, the Department determined that sales 
made to the affiliated party were at arm's length. See 19 CFR 
351.403(c). In instances where no price ratio could be constructed for 
an affiliated customer because identical merchandise was not sold to 
unaffiliated customers, the Department was unable to determine that 
these sales were made at arm's length prices and, therefore, excluded 
them from our analysis. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products 
from Argentina, 58 FR 37062, 37077 (July 9, 1993). Where the exclusion 
of such sales eliminated all sales of the most appropriate comparison 
product, the Department made a comparison to the next most similar 
product.

3. Cost of Production (COP) Analysis

    In the second administrative review of SSWR from Korea, the most 
recently completed segment of this proceeding, the Department 
disregarded POSCO/Changwon/Dongbang's sales that were found to have 
failed the cost test. Accordingly, the Department, pursuant to section 
773(b) of the Act, initiated a COP investigation of the respondent for 
purposes of this administrative review. We conducted the COP analysis 
as described below.

A. Calculation of COP

    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the 
weighted-average COP, by model, for the POR based on the sum of 
materials and fabrication costs, general and administrative (G&A) 
expenses, and packing costs.

B. Test of Comparison-Market Sales Prices

    As required under section 773(b) of the Act, we compared the 
weighted-average COPs to the comparison-market sales of the foreign 
like product, in order to determine whether these sales had been made 
at prices below the COP within an extended period of time in 
substantial quantities, and whether such prices were sufficient to 
permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. On 
a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to the comparison-market 
prices, less any applicable movement charges and direct and indirect 
selling expenses.

C. Results of the COP Test

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of POSCO/Changwon/Dongbang's sales of a given product were made 
at prices below the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of 
that product because the below-cost sales were not made in 
``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of POSCO/Changwon/
Dongbang's sales of a given product were made at prices below the COP, 
we determined that such sales were made in substantial quantities 
within an extended period of time (i.e., a period of one year). 
Further, because we compared prices to POR-average costs, we determined 
that the below-cost prices would not permit recovery of all costs 
within a reasonable time period, and thus, we disregarded the below-
cost sales in accordance with sections 773(b)(1) and (2) of the Act.
    We found that for certain products, POSCO/Changwon/Dongbang made 
home market sales at prices below the COP within an extended period of 
time in substantial quantities. Further, we found that these sale 
prices did not permit the recovery of costs within a reasonable period 
of time. We therefore excluded these sales from our analysis in 
accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

D. Calculation of CV

    In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Act, we calculated 
POSCO/Changwon/ Dongbang's CV based on the sum of POSCO/Changwon/
Dongbang's cost of materials, fabrication, SG&A, including interest 
expenses, and profit. We calculated the COPs included in the 
calculation of CV as noted above in the ``Calculation of COP'' section 
of this notice. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we 
based SG&A and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by POSCO/
Changwon/Dongbang in connection with the production and sale of the 
foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade, for consumption 
in the foreign country.

4. Calculation of NV

    We determined price-based NVs for POSCO/Changwon/Dongbang as 
follows: we calculated NV based on packed, delivered and ex-factory 
prices to home market customers. We increased the starting price for 
duty drawback revenue received from customers, where applicable, and 
for freight revenue. We made deductions from the starting price for 
foreign inland freight, where applicable, pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of 
the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(c), we made circumstance-of-sale (COS) 
adjustments to the starting price, where appropriate, for differences 
in credit and warranty.
    We deducted home market packing costs from, and added U.S. packing 
costs to, the starting price, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) 
and (B) of the Act. Where appropriate,

[[Page 57883]]

we made adjustments to NV to account for differences in the physical 
characteristics of the merchandise sold in the U.S. and comparison 
market, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 
CFR 351.411.

Currency Conversion

    Pursuant to section 773A(a) of the Act, we made currency 
conversions into U.S. dollars based on the exchange rates in effect on 
the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following weighted-average margin exists for the period September 1, 
2001, through August 31, 2002:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Margin
                 Manufacturer/Exporter                  [chyph](percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
POSCO/Changwon/Dongbang...............................             1.77
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties 
to this proceeding within five days of the publication date of this 
notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party may request a 
hearing within 30 days of the publication date of this notice. See 19 
CFR 351.310(c). If requested, a hearing will be held 44 days after the 
date of publication of this notice, or the first workday thereafter. 
Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of 
publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised 
in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 7 days after the 
deadline for filing case briefs. Interested parties are invited to 
comment on the preliminary results. Parties who submit arguments are 
requested to submit with each argument: (1) a statement of the issue, 
(2) a brief summary of the argument and (3) a table of authorities. 
Further, the parties submitting written comments should provide the 
Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such 
comments on a diskette. The Department will issue the final results of 
this administrative review, which will include the results of its 
analysis of issues raised in any such comments, within 120 days from 
the publication date of this notice.

Assessment Rate

    Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department will 
determine, and the BCBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries. For CEP sales, since the respondent reported the 
entered values and importer for these sales, we will calculate 
importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio 
of the total amount of dumping margins calculated for the examined 
sales to the entered value of sales used to calculate those duties. 
Where the importer-specific assessment rate is above de minimis, we 
will instruct the BCBP to assess the importer-specific rate uniformly 
on all entries made during the POR. For EP sales, since the respondent 
did not report the entered value for these sales, we have calculated 
exporter-specific per-unit duty assessment rates based on the ratio of 
the total amount of dumping margins calculated for the examined sales 
to the quantity corresponding to the sales used to calculate those 
duties. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions 
directly to the BCBP within 15 days of publication of the final results 
of review.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of these final results for all shipments of the subject 
merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or 
after the publication date of these final results of administrative 
review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash 
deposit rate for the reviewed companies will be the rate listed above 
(except that if the rate is de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, a 
cash deposit rate of zero will be required); (2) for previously 
investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will 
continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent 
period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a 
prior review, or the original LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer 
is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most 
recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash 
deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to 
be the ``all others'' rate of 5.77 percent, which is the ``all others'' 
rate established in the LTFV investigation (see Amended Final 
Determination). These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain 
in effect until publication of the final results of the next 
administrative review.

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
    with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption 
that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the 
subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This administrative review and this notice are in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(I)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: September 30, 2003.
James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 03-25386 Filed 10-6-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S